tv CNN Newsroom CNN January 5, 2012 11:00am-1:00pm EST
was that wolf, john king? >> in the midst of everybody >> in the midst of everybody needing other cup of coffee. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com we are waiting to hear from the president. a lot of people are wondering whether this will be a good idea whether we'll be prepared. >> how it's going to impact us, how we fight wars for sure. we're all paying attention to that live event. >> live from studio seven i'm suzanne malveaux. i want to get you up to speed for this thursday, january 5th. happening any minute now as we mentioned, president obama will announce a new defense strategy for the nation. standing by to take it live at the pentagon the moment the president appears. we are watching those pictures there. he and his top defense officials are going to outline plans to give up this country's ability to fight two major ground wars simultaneously. they intend to cut tens of thousands of ground troops, invest more in air and sea power. it will allow the pentagon to slash hundreds of billions of
dollars from the budget. rick santorum heads to new hampshire primary with a million dollar boost from iowa. source close to the campaign says that santorum raised more than $1 million after finishing second in the iowa caucuses. santorum, he is attending a faith, family and freedom town hall meeting in northfield, new hampshire. that is happening this hour. he's trying to position himself as the main conservative challenger to mitt romney. let's go to the white house. i understand the president is there at the podium to make the announcement. good morning, everybody. the united states of america is the greatest force for freedom
and security that the world has ever known, and in no small measure that's because we've built the best trained, led, equipped mill tear ray in history. as commander in chief, i'm going to keep it that way. indeed, all of us on this stage, every single one of us, have a profound responsibility to every soldier, sailor, air man, marine, and coast guardsman who puts their life on the line for america. we owe them a strategy with well-defined goals to only send them into harm's way when it's absolutely necessary, to give them the equipment and the support that they need to get the job done, and to care for them and their families when they come home. that is our solemn obligation. over the past three years that's what we've done. we've continued to make historic investments in our military, our troops and their capabilities, our military families, and our
veterans. thanks to their extraordinary service we've ended our war in iraq. we've decimated al qaeda's leadership. we've delivered justice to osama bin laden and we've put that terrorist network on the path to defeat. we've made important progress in afghanistan. we've begun the transition so afghans can assume more responsibility for their own security. we joined alleys and partners to protect the libyan people as they ended the regime of moammar gadhafi. now we're turning the page on the decade of war. three years ago we had some 180,000 troops in iraq and afghanistan. today we've cut that number in half. as the transition in afghanistan continues, more of our troops will continue to come home. more broadly, around the globe we've strengthened alliances, forged new partnerships, and served as a force for universal rights and human dignity.
in short, we've succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemies, reducing the number of americans in harm's way, and we've restored america's global leadership. that makes us safer and it makes us stronger. that's an achievement that every american, especially those americans who are proud to wear the uniform of the united states armed forces should take great pride in. this success has brought our nation once more to a moment of transition. even as our troops continue to fight in afghanistan, the tide of war is receding. even as our forces prevail in today's missions, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to look ahead to the force that we are going to need in the future. at the same time, we have to renew our economic strength here at home which is the foundation of our strength around the
world, and that includes putting our fiscal house in order. to that end the budget control act passed by congress last year with the support of republicans and democrats alike mandates reductions in federal spending, including defense spending. i have insisted that we do that responsibly. the security of our nation and the lives of our men and women in uniform depend on it. that's why i called for this comprehensive defense review, to clarify our strategic interests in a fast-changing world and to guide our defense priorities and spending over the coming decade because the size and the structure of our military and defense budgets have to be driven by a strategy, not the other way around. moreover, we have to remember the lessons of history. we can't afford to repeat the mistakes that have been made in the past. after world war ii, after vietnam, when our military was
left ill prepared for the future. as commander in chief, i will not let that happen again, not on my watch. we need a smart, strategic set of priorities. the new guidance that the defense department is releasing today does just that. i want to thank secretary panetta and general dempsey for their extraordinary leadership during this process. i want to thank the service secretaries and chiefs, the combat tant commanders and so many defense leaders, military and civilian, active guard and reserve, for their contributions. many of us met repeatedly asking tough questions, challenging on assumptions and making hard choices. we've come together today around an approach that will keep our nation safe and our military the finest that the world has ever known. this review also benefits from
the contributions of leaders from across my national security team, from the departments of state, homeland security, veterans affairs, as well as the intelligence community. this is critical because meeting the challenges of our time cannot be the work of our military alone or the united states alone. it requires all elements of our national power working together in concert with our allies and our partners. so i'm going to let leon and marty go into the details, but i just want to say that this effort reflects the guidance that i personally gave throughout this process. yes, the tide of war is receding, but the question that this strategy answers is what kind of military will we need long after the wars of the last decade are over? and today we're fortunate to be moving forward from a position of strength. as i made clear in australia, we will be strengthening our presence in the asia pacific and budget reductions will not come
at the expense of that critical region. we're going to continue investing in our critical partnerships and alliances including nato which has demonstrated time and again, most recently in libya, that it's a force multiplier. we will stay vigilant, especially in the middle east. as we look beyond the wars in iraq and afghanistan and the end of long-termination building with large military footprints, we'll be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces. we'll continue to get rid of outdated cold war era systems so that we can invest in the capabilities that we need for the future, including intelligence, sur valance, reconnaissance, counter terrorism couldn't terg weapons of mass destruction and the ability to operate in environments where adversaries try to deny us access. so, yes, our military will be leaner, but the world must know
the united states is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible, and ready for the full range of contingencies from threats. we're also going to keep faith with those who serve by making sure our troops have the equipment and capabilities they need to succeed and by prioritizing efforts that focus on wounded warrers, mental health, and well-being of our military families. as our newest veterans rejoin civilian life, we'll keep working to give our veterans the care, the benefit, the benefits and job opportunities that they deserve and that they have earned. finally, although today is about our defense strategy, i want to close with a word about the defense budget that will flow from this strategy. the details will be announced in the coming weeks. some will no doubt say that the spending reductions are too big.
others will say that they're too small. it will be easy to take issue with a particular change in a particular program, but i encourage all of us to remember what president eisenhower once said, that each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration. we need to maintain balance in and among national programs. after a decade of war and as we rebuild the source of our strength at home and abroad, it's time to restore that balance. i think it's important for all-americans to remember over the past ten years since 9/11 our defense budget grew at an extraordinary pace. over the next ten years the growth in the defense budget will slow but the fact of the matter is this, it will still grow because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. in fact, the defense budget will
still be larger than it was toward the end of the bush administration. and i firmly believe, i think the american people understand, that we can keep our military strong and our nation secure with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next ten countries combined. so, again, i want to thank secretary panetta, chairman dempsey, all the defense leaders who are on the stage and some who are absent for their leadership and their partnership throughout this process. our men and women in uniform give their very best to america every single day, and in return they deserve the very best from america. i thank all of you for the commitment to the goal that we all share, keeping america strong and secure in the 21st century and keeping our armed forces the very best in the
all set? let me begin by thanking president obama for coming here to the pentagon this morning and also in particular to thank him for his vision and guidance and leadership as this department went through a very intensive review that we undertook to try to develop the new strategic guidance that we're releasing today. and in my experience, this has been an unprecedented process, to have the president of the united states participate in discussions involving the development of a defense strategy and to spend time with our service chiefs and spend time with our
combatant commanders to get their views. this guidance that we are releasing today, which has been distributed now throughout the department, it really does represent a historic shift to the future. and it recognizes that this country is at a strategic turning point. after a decade of war and after large increases in defense spending. as the president mentioned, the u.s. military's mission in iraq has now ended. we do have continued progress in afghanistan. it's tough and it remains challenging, but we are beginning to enable a transition to afghan security responsibility. the nato effort in libya has concluded with the fall of gadhafi, and targeted
counter-terrorism efforts have significantly weakened al qaeda and decimated its leader shmpt and now as these events are occurring, the congress has mandated by law that we achieve significant defense savings. so clearly we are at a turning point. but even as our large-scale military campaigns recede, the united states still faces complex and growing array of security challenges across the globe. and unlike past drawdowns, oftentimes the threats that the country was facing went away, the fact is that there remain a number of challenges that we have to confront, challenges that call for reshaping of america's defense priorities focusing on the continuing
threat of violent extremism, which is still there and still to be dealt with. proliferation of lethal weapons and materials. the destabilizing behavior of nations like iran and north korea. the rise of new powers across asia and the dramatic changes that we've seen unfold in the middle east. all of this comes at a time when america confronts a very serious deficit and debt problem here at home, a problem which is itself a national courty risk that is squeezing both the defense and the domestic budgets. even as we face these considerable pressures, including the requirement of the budget control act to reduce defense spending by what we have now as the number of $487 billion over ten years, i do not
believe, and i've said this before, that we have to choose between our national security and fiscal responsibility. department of defense will play its part in helping the nation put our fiscal house in order. the president has made clear, and i have made clear, that the savings that we've been mandated to achieve must be driven by strategy and must be driven by rigorous analysis, not by numbers alone. consequently, over the last few months we've conducted an intensive review to try to guide defense priorities and spending over the coming decade. all of this in light straft teej beginning guidance that we received in discussions with the president and the recommendations of this department's both senior
military and civilian leadership, both of them provided those kinds of recommendations. this process has enabled us to assess risk, to set priorities, and to make some very hard choices. let me be clear again. the department would need to make a strategic shift regardless of the nation's fiscal situation. we are at that point in history. that's the reality of the world we live in. fiscal crisis has forced us to face the strategic shift that's taking place now. as difficult as it may be to achieve the mandated defense savings, this has given all of us in the department of defense the opportunity to reshape our defense strategy and forestructure to more effectively meet the challenges of the future, to deter
aggression, to shape the security environment, and to decisively prevail in any conflict. from the beginning i set out to ensure that this strategy review would be inclusive. chairman dempsey spgs and i met frequently with the service chiefs, secretaries, combat tant commanders, senior enlisted advisors. we also discussed this strategy and its implications obviously with the president, his national security advisors, with members of congress, and with outside experts. there were four over arching principles that have guided our deliberations. i've said this at the very beginning as we began this process. one, we must maintain the world's finest military, one that supports and sustains the unique global leadership role of the united states in today's world. two, we mass. void hollowing out
the force. a smaller, ready, and well-equipped military is much more preferable to a larger, ill-prepared force that has been arbitrarily cut across the board. third, savings must be achieved in a balanced manner with everything on the table, including politically sensitive areas that will likely provoke opposition from parts of the congress, from industry, and from advocacy groups. that's the nature of making hard choices. four, we must preserve the quality of the all volunteer force and not break faith with our men and women in uniform or their families. with these principles in mind, i'll focus on some of the significant strategic choices and shifts that are being made. the united states military, let
me be very clear about this, the united states military will remain capable across the spectrum. we will continue to conduct a complex set of missions ranging from counter-terrorism, ranging from countering weapons of mass destruction, to maintaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. we will be fully prepared to protect our interests, defend our homeland, and support civil authorities. our goal to achieve the u.s. force for the future involves the following significant changes. first, the u.s. joint force will be smaller and it will be leaner, but its great strength will be that it will be more agile, more flexible, ready to
deploy quickly, innovative, and technologically advanced. that is the force of the future. second, as we move towards this new joint force, we are also rebalancing our global posture and presence emphasizing the pacific and the middle east. these are the areas where we see the greatest challenges for the future. the u.s. military will increase its institutional weight and focus on enhanced presence, power projection and denerns asia pacific. this region is growing in importance to the future of the united states in terms of our economy and our national security. this means, for instance, improving capabilities that maintain our military's technological edge and freedom of action. at the same time, the united
states will place a premium in maintaining our military presence and capabilities in the broader middle east. the united states and our partners must remain capable of deterring and defeating aggression while supporting political progress and reform. third, the united states will continue to strengthen its key alliances, to build partnerships, and to develop innovative ways to sustain u.s. presence elsewhere in the world. a long history of close political and military cooperation with our european allies and partners will be critical to addressing the challenges of the 21st century. we will invest in the shared capabilities and responsibilities of nato, our most effective military alliance. the u.s. military's force posture in europe will of
necessity continue to adapt and evolve to meet new challenges and opportunities, particularly in light of the security needs of the continent relative to the emerging strategic priorities that we face elsewhere. we are committed to sustaining a presence that will meet our article 5 commitments, deter aggression, and the u.s. military will work closely with our allies to allow for the kinds of coalition operations that nato has undertaken in libya and afghanistan. in latin america, africa, elsewhere in the world we will use innovative methods to sustain u.s. presence, maintaining key military-to-military relation, and pursuing new security partnerships as needed. wherever possible we will develop low cost and small
footprint approaches to achieving our security objectives emphasizing rotational deployments, emphasizing exercises, military exercises with these nations, and doing other innovative approaches to maintain a presence throughout the rest of the world. fourth, as we shift the size and composition of our ground, air, and naval forces, we must be capable of successfully confronting and defeating any aggressor and respond to the changing nature of warfare. our strategy review concluded that the united states must have the capability to fight several conflicts at the same time. we are not confronting obviously the threats of the past. we are confronting the threats of the 21st century, and that
demands greater flexibility to shift and deploy forces to be able to fight and defeat any enemy anywhere. how we defeat the enemy may very well vary across conflicts, but make no mistake, we will have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time. as a global force our military will never be doing only one thing. it will be responsible for a range of missions and activities across the global of varying scope, duration, and strategic priority. this will place a premium on flexible and adaptable forces that can respond quickly and effectively to a variety of contingencies and potential adversaries. again, that's the nature of the
world that we are dealing with. in addition to those forces, the united states will emphasize building the capacity of our partners and allies to more effectively defend their own territory, their own interests through better use of diplomacy, development, and security force assistance. in accordance with this construct, and with the end of u.s. military commitments in iraq and the drawdown that is already underway in afghanistan, the army and marie corps will no longer need to be sized to support the kind of large-scale, long-term stability operations that have dominated military priorities and force generation over the past decade. lastly, as we reduce the overall defense budget, we will protect and in some cases increase our
investments in special operations forces, in new technologies like isr and unmanned systems, in space, and in particular in cyberspace capabilities. and also our capacity to quickly mobilize if necessary. these investments will help the military retain and continue to refine and institutionalize the expertise and capabilities that have been gained at such great cost over the last decade. and most importantly, we will structure and pace the reductions in the nation's ground forces in such a way that they can surge, regenerate, and mobilize capabilities needed for any contingency. building in reversability and the ability to quickly mobilize
will be key. that means re-examining the mix of elements in the active and reserve components. it means maintaining a strong national guard and reserve. it means retaining a healthy cadre of experienced ncos and mid-grade officers and preserving the health and viability of the nation's defense industrial base. the strategic guidance that we're providing is the first step in this department's goal to build a joint force of 2020, a force sized and shaped differently from the military of the cold war, the post-cold war force of the 1990s, or the force that was built over the past decade to engage in large-scale
ground wars. this strategy and vision will guide the more specific budget decisions that will be finalized and announced in the coming weeks as part of the president's budget. in some cases we will be reducing capabilities that we believe no longer are a top priority but in other cases we will invest in new capabilities to maintain a decisive military edge against a growing array of threats. there's no question, there's no question that we have to make some tradeoffs and this we will be taking, as a result of that, some level of additional but acceptable risk in the budget plan that we release next month. these are not easy choices. we will continue aggressive
efforts to weed out waste, reduce overhead, to reform business practices, to consolidate our duplicative operations but budget reductions of this magnitude will inevitably impact the size and capabilities of our military. and as i've said before, true national security cannot be achieved through a strong military alone. it requires strong diplomacy. it requires strong intelligence efforts. and above all, it requires a strong economy, fiscal discipline, and effective government. the capability, readiness, and agility of the force will not be sustained if congress fails to do its duty and the military is forced to accept far deeper cuts, in particular the
arbitrary across-the-board cuts that are currently scheduled to take effect in january of 2013 through the mechanism of see quester. that would force us to shed missions and commitments and capabilities that we believe are necessary to protect core u.s. national security interests, and it would result in what we think would be a demoralized and hollow force. that is not something that we intend to do. and finally i'd like to also address our men and women in uniform and the civilian employees who support them who i know have been watching the budget debates here in washington with concern about what it means for them and for their families. you have done everything this country has asked you to do and more. you have put your lives on the
line, and you have fought to make our country safer and stronger. i believe the strategic guidance honors your sacrifice and strengthens the country by building a force equipped to deal with the future. i have no higher responsibility than fighting to protect you and to protect your families and just as you have fought and bled to protect our country, i commit to you that i will fight for you and for your families. there is no doubt that the fiscal situation this country faces is difficult, and in many ways we are at a crisis point, but i believe that in every crisis there is opportunity. out of this crisis we have the opportunity to end the old ways
of doing business and to build a modern force for the 21st century, that can win today's wars and successfully confront any enemy and respond to any threat and any challenge of the future. our responsibility, my responsibility as secretary of defense, is to protect the nation's security and to keep america safe. with this joint force i am confident that we can effectively defend the united states of america. thank you. been watching secretary of defense leon panetta talking about a new military strategy he and president obama outlining this essentially saying that this is required $487 billion worth of cuts at the defense department over the next ten years, but the secretary as well
as the president reassuring the american people that this will be a smaller and leaner force, more agile, more flexible to deal with the national security concerns around the world. i'm going to ask an air force colonel after a quick break whether or not he thinks this is an adequate plan, whether or not this is a good idea. [ monica ] i'm away on a movie shoot
and it hasn't been going exactly as planned. cut. cut! [ monica ] i thought we'd be on location for 3 days -- it's been 3 weeks. so i had to pick up some more things. good thing i've got the citi simplicity card. i don't get hit with a fee if i'm late with a payment... which is good because on this job, no! bigger! [ monica ] i may not be home for a while. [ male announcer ] the new citi simplicity card. no late fees. no penalty rate. no worries.
president obama laid out his plan to slash billions of dollars from the defense department. his strategy to cut the number of ground troops as well and invest more in air and sea power. they're currently deployed in more than 150 countries around the world. afghanistan, asia, african, australia. the latest defense department
figures show more than 200,000 military personnel currently are serving overseas. 91,000 are working in afghanistan right now. roughly 200 non-combat troops are in iraq following the military pullout last month. other troops are deployed to several parts, different peace keeping missions around the world. so under this u.s. plan, the new plan here, countries no longer going to be capable of fighting two major ground wars at the same time. joining us live from washington to talk about all of this, former air force colonel. first of all, people hear that and they become concerned. you cannot fight two ground wars at the same time. does that put our security, americans at risk in any way? what do you think? >> well, suzanne, it really depends how we approach it from a strategic standpoint. the way the secretary clarified the president's remarks or added to the president's remarks was
kind of interesting, i thought, because what he said was that we would be able to do more than one thing at once. so it sounds like he's saying we're going to do more than one thing, maybe not two full-blown wars, but we're going to do something in addition to one major contingency. i think they're right in looking at it from the standpoint that major wars in the mode of world war ii are probably not going to happen immediately in the immediate future, but we have to be ready for almost anything that's out there. as we know from the experience of the last ten years, there are going to be a lot of things that pop up that we don't quite know yet that we can't quite predict and that's why this becomes an important way of doing the strategy. so it has the possibility of success. the devil, as they say, will always be in the details though. >> colonel, one thing i found striking was the secretary said that he would accept a level of acceptable risk. what is he talking about? what does he mean when he says acceptable risk? >> well, it's -- you know, somebody will have to ask him
directly, but for most people what it is is the ability to actually say i can take a risk, let's say, in latin america because i don't think anybody in latin america is going to attack me right now as an example, but in east asia, in the pacific realm there's a greater risk that we may be attacked or our interests may be adversely affected, therefore, we will put more emphasis in that area. so that is what he is talking about. i can take risk in some areas because nobody will probably attack me there. in other areas attack, likelihood, the likelihood of a confrontation that would require the use of military force is more pronounced. >> is warfare moving in a dirn direction with the use of these unmanned drones spying from the air followed by these surgical attacks to specific targets? >> certainly. what we're doing is emulating in the conventional forces what has been going on in the special operations for some time. that is a welcome development whampt it does is make it possible for us to reduce our
forces, to not put as many people in harm's way as we used to do. you see that in the reduced casualty rates. any casualty is bad, but we are far, far different, far, far different military because of this technology and because of the fact that we can actually be very effective with far fewer people on the ground generally speaking. there are other missions like we saw in iraq where you still do require a significant ground presence, but it's nowhere near what we had in world war ii. >> colonel, just to be clear, to be honest to our view jeers here, is this not motivated more by money and budgetary concerns than security interests, the fact that the bottom line is we can't afford, no longer afford to fund two ground wars at once? >> well, suzanne, that's really part of the problem. because of the budgetary situation that we're in right now, we really cannot do a cold war like two major wars at once scenario. that's the real problem. but what we can do is we can
work smaller scale contingencies and hopefully shape the rest of the world in such a way that we don't need to put a larger footprint of forces in areas that we're not wanting to put that into. we have to be very careful with that because the minute that adversaries sense a weakness, they will try to exploit that. we have to be very careful how we communicate our capabilities to them. >> appreciate it. we are following all things politics as well. rick santorum having his surge, if you will, momentum, a lot more money since his near victory in iowa. he is now in northfield, new hampshire. let's take a listen in to his campaign event. >> to reduce the payroll tax. i'm sure you'd like to say i don't want to pay the employer's side of that or whatever. >> it used to be structured that way. that's the history of it. it used to be that way. even reagan made it, it was 1.5 times the employee and the 1986 tax format raised it from 10% to
15.3%. it evolved that way. >> '83. >> '83. thank you. i love how good you are at remembering details. that's a real good point for you. i'll let you go to other questions. harry truman was the only self-employed president i believe we've ever had. he put us in that system at 1.5%. it was only the employee's share because he understood what the evolution of employee and employers would be. i would like to go back in time a little bit to some fairness. >> yeah. the '83 social security reform, i love ronald regan. he got snookerred in the '83 reform because what happened in '83 was he got a bunch of tax increases that tip o'neal and greenspan and the folks who -- this was the greenspan commission. they got a bunch of tax increases immediately, what you were talking about, and the rate went way up. it went up to -- social security went up to 12.4%.
they did get some benefit cuts and they did it in a very smart way. the benefit cuts didn't come for a long, long time. in fact, i suspect i was at a town hall meeting in brentwood, someone was talking about social security and i talked about some of the things we're going to have to do to change the social security system. i asked what's the eligibility age right now for social security? anybody know? >> 67. >> it's 66 and a month or two. it's going to go to 67. when did that happen? in 1983. and they didn't start changing it. it was 65 back then. and they changed it in 1983 under ronald regan, but it didn't take effect for 20 years. so none of you people are mad at ronald regan for having done that, right? because none of you know. see, this is how politicians do things that are really smart. that's why you see paul ryan saying i'm going to fix social security. i'm going to fix medicare in ten
years. right? so figuring, if you're under 55 you won't be paying much attention, right? the problem is, the problem is this is not a problem we can wait ten years to solve. we've got a huge deficit, $1.2 trillion dollars. we have as much debt as the siesz of our economy. think of that. our debt, $15 trillion is the size of our economy. our ability to pay that debt, think about this, if we are -- if we were in the european union, we would be one of those countries that would be in a forced austerity program and yet we go about as if nothing's wrong. oh, we can wait. we can solve these problems later. we don't have to balance our budget. the president wants to spend more. if you asked him whether he would rather cut spending to reduce the deficit or increase
spending to, quote, help the economy, pay off his friends, his answer would be, how many people think he would say cut the spending? you're right. we're in a financial crisis right now. our credit has been downgraded, and we have a president who's completely disconnected from the reality that something has to be done. something has to be done, and we have to do it in the areas where the deficit has been created. and that is? spending. this is not a revenue problem. yes, revenues are down slightly from the average, 18% is usually the average revenue of the overall economy, it's the average revenue we collect. we're down to about 15 or 16. spending's at 25% of the overall economy. the reason for the big deficit we have and for the debt we've accumulated is government has
exploded in cost, and that's why you see republicans justifiably saying, don't even try revenues. that isn't the problem. revenues will come up to historic levels as soon as the economy starts growing again. some expenditures will come down if the economy starts growing again, but there is a structural deficit that is a spending deficit, not a tax deficit. and if we don't address that spending -- >> listening to rick santorum out of new hampshire talking about an economic crisis. interesting enough we had heard from the secretary of defense leon panetta saying that we are at a crisis point talking about the economy. we're going to have more on the horse race out of new hampshire. the republicans who would like to replace president obama, what their ideas are about the economy and what they are now calling an economic crisis. going to take a quick break. [ male announcer ] feeling like a shadow of your former self?
most pt republicans presidential candidates are crisscrossing new hampshire today, just five days before the first primary. polls show mitt romney is leading but rick santorum has momentum. he also has a lot more campaign cash than before. jim acosta joins us live from new hampshire where we saw santorum speaking just moments ago. it is a hushd voice there, i understand because you're in the room with all those guys. i understand he's bringing in a lot more money, even perhaps $1 million after his showing in iowa. tell us about the fund-raising. >> reporter: that's right, suzanne. i'm just going to throw out
there i'm speaking in my golf announcing voice, ringside at a town hall. it is in an echoey old railroad museum. the santorum campaign says it raised $1 million. is that enough to take on mitt romney all the way to the convention in tampa? no, it is not but it is a good start considering the fact that his campaign wasn't really even spending thatch money on advertising in iowa before the caucuses. but the santorum people will tell you but look how that turned out. it turned out pretty well for them. i think the key question this week in new hampshire is can anybody catch mitt romney. the polls are showing -- yes, many of these polls were taken before the caucuses. we are still waiting for some fresh ones to come in to see whether or not santorum is carrying that momentum into new hampshire but the question is whether any of these candidates can actually catch mitt romney in this state that neighbors the state where he used to be
governor. people are saying maybe the next fight is going to be in south carolina. i think in the next 24 hours or so we'll see new polls showing where this race stands. but you heard former senator san form a few moments ago talking about the deficit and fiscal crisis in this country. that's exactly what these conservatives want to hear in this state and it is in the setting of the proud tradition of the town hall meeting in new hampshire which i know you know all too well. it is a fun format, it is great to hear voters asking these types of questions and it is a free wheeling format. makes it a lot of fun to cover. >> absolutely. i know what it is like to talk in that hushed voice. everyone turns around and looks at you if you're too loud. thanks, jim. tuesday, make the best choice for politics. wolf blitzer, erin burnett, candy crowley and john king. live coverage of the new hampshire primary, cnn tuesday
landing on the roof of this house. this is in fresno, california. the woman inside and the nephew that she was baby-sitting, thank god, they're okay. the driver fled but was later arrested charged with stealing his exgirlfriend's car. go figure. to a minneapolis suburb where leftover merchandise at a bridal shop is destroyed -- on purpose. this priscilla of boston store is closing but instead of donating the dresses to charity, workers used spray paint to get rid of the ones they considered damaged or unsellable. finally we go to southeastern colorado where it took firefighters 20 minutes to rescue a golden retriever from a frozen pond. it fell in while chasing geese. listen to the voice of a young woman with a shotgun home invaders trying to break down her door. >> i've got two guns in my hand. is it okay to shoot him if he
top of the hour, i'm suzanne malveaux. want to get you up to speed. president obama just this last hour announced plans for a leaner, cheaper, more agile military. one he says that will maintain its superior or the and its ability to fight terrorism as well as confront new threats around the world. the president says his strategy is centered on the military the country needs after the long war in the last connection dade. >> that's why i called for this comprehensive defense review, to clarify our strategic interests in a fast changing world and to guide our defense priorities in spending over the coming decade because the size and the structure of our military and defense budgets have to be driven by a strategy, not the other way around. >> the race is on. in new hampshire, the nation's first primary, just five days away and candidates are fanning out across the state today. rick santorum, newt gingrich, mitt romney and jon huntsman have all had campaign events already today.
and all of them but romney have more stops in new hampshire throughout the day. romney heads to south carolina. that states hold the country's first southern primary on january 21st. police officer is dead, five others are wounded. this out of ogden, utah. he and his fellow officers were shot while serving a search warrant in a drug bust. he served on the ogden police force for seven years. police say the suspect was also shot but is expected to survive. a young mother in oklahoma, baby in her arms. right? grabs a shotgun when two men break down her door. she barricades herself in and then calls 911. now listen to this. >> i've got two guns in my hand. is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door? >> well, you have to do whatever you can do to protect yourself. i can't tell you that you can do that, but you do what you have to do to protect your baby. >> here's what happens next. she opened fire. one of the home invaders is
killed. we are all over this story today. in a few minutes you'll find out why the intruder who survived is facing murder charges. and do you know if your state has a stand your ground law or castle law. that, too, coming up. three sisters who died in a horrific christmas morning house fire are being remembered in a public mass in new york today. 10-year-old lilly badger and 7-year-old twins grace and sara died, as well as their grandparents. the fire marshal in stamford, connecticut believes smoldering embers from a fireplace started that fire. former libyan military officer who fought against moammar gadhafi's troops last year is now the country's new chief of armed forces. he worked as a field commander in the battle against gadhafi forces back in february. he was arrested by the gadhafi military in april. now this appointment comes as libya's new interim government is working to disarm the
militias that emerged during the war between gadhafi forces and rebels. afghan president hamid karzai seems to be ready to endorse talks between the u.s. and the taliban. in a palace statement karzai says, "afghanistan to save the country from war conspiracies, the killing of innocent afghans and reach peace, agreeses with the talks between the united states and taliban that will end up in establishing an office for taliban in qatar." karzai's announcement comes a day after the taliban tentive n tentatively agreed to talks. after a year-long search her family finally found her -- in colombia. how did she get there? she was deported by u.s. immigration who mistakenly thought she was an illegal immigrant. now her family wants some answers. ed lavendera is live in dallas.
such a bizarre story. very hard to believe how all of this happened. explain how it is that you've got a run-away, an american, who's deported. >> well, this is simply baffling on many, many levels. but this story starts out in november of 2010. this 14-year-old girl lives here in the dallas, texas area. she runs away from home. over the course of the next several months her family works to kind of try to figure out where she might be. we'll cut forward to april of last year. she's arrested for shoplifting at a mall in houston, texas and instead of giving authorities -- she didn't have any identification on her. instead of giving authorities her real name, she tells the local investigators there that she is tika cortez, 21 years old. she's booked into the jail there, she goes through the process, pleads guilty to the shopt lifting, spends four days in jail. during that time immigration and customs enforcement put a hold
on her. after she served that sentence she's reprimanded over to i.c.e. custody. according to officials there, she had been telling them she was from colombia. houston p.d. says they did not ask citizenship of anyone they arrest so they say that information wouldn't have come from them but i.c.e. officials insist she declared herself a colombian. she was then deported. to get deported into colombia she had to get the necessary paperwork from the colombian government. basically we know this 14-year-old girl, 15, now, was able to fool local authorities, also the i.c.e. agents and officials there and the immigration process and on top of that the colombian government to get the necessary paperwork to get deported back into colombia without any of her own identification. her family insists that there is no way this 14-year-old girl could have pulled this off alone. they think there is something much more sinister going on here. >> do we know why she claims she
was from colombia? was she trying to get away from her family and she wanted to be taken to colombia? why did that happen? >> why colombia is completely unclear. there is a lot of people who have been working with the family who have some theories as to what might be going on. but why she would say colombia and how she would end up there, then at the point of being deported at the very last minute, why not raise her hand and say, whoa, wait a second, i'm not who i say i am. they don't understand that. as soon as officials in colombia an dallas detectives working with various agencies to track her down in colombia she's now in the custody of essentially is a government agency that is almost run like a foefster care situation. we do know she is in the custody of officials in colombia, that they say they are looking after her and that they are in the
process of working on it to get her sent back. but she's been given paperwork that says she is a colombian citizen so that all has to be revoked. the big story here is that this girl has fooled many people on many different levels and it is absolutely bizarre. >> ed, are immigration officials from the united states explaining this saying how this could happen? i assume that they took her fingerprints and that there was a process that she went through. >> in my conversations with the federal authorities here in the united states, they say that this name she had given him, tika cortez, came back as someone who was not in their system so that this was a brand-new name, brand-new fingerprints and because of that it wasn't anyone. some of the initial reporting in this case said that tika cortez actually matched someone who was a criminal illegal immigrant that needed to be reported so there is some question here and
confusion. i.c.e. insists this person was not in their records, that they didn't deport someone that they didn't already know about and so all of this is very confusing. they say they just learned of this a couple days ago and are still tracking down all the facts in this case and are taking this very seriously. >> it is very confusing, ed. thank you very much. still a lot of questions regarding that kind of immigration snafu that happened with that young woman. here's a rundown of some of the stories we are covering over the next hour. first, apparently we haven't heard the last of casey anthony. she may have re-appeared now on youtube. but is it really her? just last hour president obama announced a new defense strategy. we're going to break down that plan. then, how does rick santorum really feel? we'll look into the views of the man who almost won the iowa caucuses. and instant voice chats. how a former soldier uses technology to help other soldiers phone home. >> i've got two guns in my hand.
is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door? >> the answer to that question, not always yes. we're taking a look at when is it legal to open fire? and boston cream pie. did you say pie? pie. she said pie. pie. [ male announcer ] get back on track with low prices on everything you need. backed by our ad match guarantee. walmart. it's pro-cool technology releases armies of snowmen masseuse who cuddle up with your soreness and give out polar bear hugs. technology. [ male announcer ] new bengay cold therapy. the same technology used by physical therapists. go to bengay.com for a $3 coupon. for you today ? we gave people right off the street a script and had them read it. no, sorry, i can't help you with that. i'm not authorized to access that transaction. that's not in our policy. i will transfer you now. my supervisor is currently not available. would you like to hold ? that department is currently closed. have i helped you with everything you needed ? if your bank doesn't give you knowledgeable customer service 24/7, you need an ally.
ally bank. no nonsense. just people sense. whose non-stop day starts with back pain... and a choice. take advil now and maybe up to four in a day. or choose aleve and two pills for a day free of pain. way to go, coach. ♪ can you enjoy vegetables with sauce and still reach your weight loss goals? you can with green giant frozen vegetables. over twenty delicious varieties have sixty calories or less per serving and are now weight watchers-endorsed. try green giant frozen vegetables with sauce.
we haven't seen her in months, but a woman who multiple sources say is casey anthony, the orlando mother who is accused of killing her child, apparently appearing in a diary online. my colleague ashleigh banfield covered her trial last summer. >> it is really such an unusual video. i can tell you after staring across a courtroom from casey anthony for 80 days it certainly does look a like like her.
i've also spoken to the producer that's confirmed this through casey's camp and he says it is without question casey anthony. casey says on tape she taped this in october, it is just surfacing now. perhaps what the most strange aspect of this tape is that she doesn't say a word about the biggest legal story last year that involved her. a death penalty murder trial involving the death of her daughter caylee. doesn't say a word about the death of caylee or about the actual trial, doesn't say a word about being acquitted, doesn't say a word about being in jail or her family. she's been in a hiding location, schouppe hae been since she was released from prison. she does say something along the lines of how 67 things have change zblpd just a little surreal of how much things that changed since july and how many things haven't changed. but the good thing is that
things are starting to look up and things are starting to change. in a good way. >> short of that, she goes into really nothing else except hopefully leaving the location from which she's broadcasting, she says possibly february because she's hoping for an early release from her probation. but she's in hiding because the judge acknowledged the danger that she faces because of the hatred towards this woman. and if she does actually leave her location, then she's just going to be among the masses, the rest of us. who knows what her life will be after that. she does say there are going to be more videos though. >> thanks, ashleigh. in the video there's also no mention of anthony's parents. she did say she adopted a dog and she says she loves the dog. there you go. u.s. defense at a turning point now. president obama wants a leader. agile more technologically advanced military. president laid out a plan to revamp strategy in the last hour at the pentagon. we brought that to you live. our chris lawrence was in the briefing room. chris, first of all, havie inin
covered the pentagon for some time, this is the first time you've actually had a president in the pentagon briefing room make this kind of announcement. what is the significance of that, actually going and showing up with his top brass? >> still don't know, suzanne. it is 2012. it is an election year. you don't want to ascribe political motives to a move like this but there have been a lot of big events to come out of the pentagon in the last decade or so that the -- the launch of the war in iraq, the post-9/11 attack in afghanistan, the killing of osama bin laden, and none of that merited an actual appearance by the president behind the podium here. but this is a major, major shift in strategy when you talk about going from a two-war strategy down to a one-war -- or one-war strategy and then deploy troops to fight off other adversaries as needed. that's a big shift.
they're also going to draw down the size of the army and marine corps significantly. you could be down to about what it was pre-9/11. so these are very big strategic changes that are coming up in the next five to ten years. >> chris, why are they doing this? >> well, bottom line -- they'll say that the strategy drives everything else, but we heard from the defense secretary and chairman of the joint chiefs that, look, the fiscal crisis forced them to address this new strategy right now. that's the bottom line. you've got a half a trillion dollars in cuts to make, possibly even more depending on what congress does. and they simply can't afford to do everything. you can't have these extra 70,000, 80,000 troops in uniform and providing for their pay, their retirement, everything else, while at the same time trying to repair equipment that was damaged or run down during the wars and project force in
asia and the pacific which is where the president and pentagon now says will be the focus of u.s. military efforts going forward. >> chris, one last question here. how do they explain that they're going to be able to maintain national security, our safety here, if they are making these kinds of drastic cuts? >> well, what they're saying is that basically that the wars have changed. i talked with one official who said, look, if you think the greatest danger is right around the corner, then you keep the size of the army very large right now. but if you think the threats are only going to grow down the road fi 5, 10, 15 years, it makes sense to draw down a little bit now, put that money into weapons systems, research, development and things like that, and then be able to adapt that when those threats do emerge later on. >> chris lawrence, thank you. now is your chance to "talk back." today's question -- is president
obama's military plan the right move for the united states? experts are already weighing in with very strong opinions on this. a conservative policy research group says, "it is a ticket to world war iii. it's the worst idea ever." on the flip side, the certain for american progress refers to the u.s. spending more money on defense than any other country in the world. "we already spend more than the next 17 other countries combined. we've got to put this in perspective. who we going to fight? what are their forces? "so tell us what you think. today's "talk back" question -- is president obama's military plan the right move for the united states? post your responses to my facebook page at facebook.com/suzannecnn. we'll air some your responses later in the hour. forget for a minute the polls, politicking here. where do the candidates really
stand on some of these tough issues? what some of the white house hopefuls plan to do about the war in afghanistan. through diet and exercise, alli can help you lose one more by blocking some of the fat you eat. let's fight fat with alli. ♪ we're getting back in shape. oh! try these. i sprinted here... wow! from your house?! from the car. unh! ooh. [ male announcer ] get back on track with low prices on everything you need. backed by our ad match guarantee. walmart.
it's been a decade of war and counting. so whoever is sitting in the white house next year is going to have some enormous responsibility of deciding what to do about afghanistan. president obama has promised to remove 33,000 more troops by the end of next summer. the republican candidates have all been critical of his approach. but they vary greatly amongst themselves about the best way forward. so, here's where they stand on the issue. mitt romney, the front-runner, says it is up to the generals on the ground to decide when it is
safe to pull out and he favors a more gradual handoff to afghan forces. jon huntsman says the call should be made by the commander in chief, not the generals. he says the american people are tired of war. it is time to bring the troops home now. ron paul also wants to bring the troops home immediately. not just from afghanistan, but foreign military bases from all over the world. rick santorum says insurgents are just waiting for troops to leave. he says we should stay in afghanistan as long as we have to and he opposes a timetable for withdrawal. newt gingrich has also been critical of president obama's time line for withdrawal. now he wants a change of approach in afghanistan and to move the focus to the larger long-term war on what he calls islamic extremism in general. rick perry wants to bring troops home as soon and as safely as we can depending on the situation on the ground. tune in tomorrow.
we'll take a look at where the candidates stand on another tough issue -- securing the border. listen to the voice of this young woman. she has a shotgun in her hand. this is after home invaders broke down her door. >> i've got two guns in my hand. is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door? >> well, you have to do whatever can do to protect yourself. i can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby. >> so she was inner home with the gun when armed intruder broke in. we're going to tell you what happened next and we're going to z discuss what you're really allowed to do if you're in that situation. [ panting ] ha ha ha!
a young woman shoots an armed home intruder to death. full details and a conversation about whether you'd be legally cleared if that happened to you. and then, cautious optimism on the job front. we are live from the new york stock exchange. and then later, a great idea born on battlefield in afghanistan. it is a cool new app turns your phone into a walkie talkie. but first, want to go to a live event that we're keeping our eye on. this is newt gingrich at a town hall in littleton, new hampshire. >> i think i am the only person who can beat obama because i am the only person who can create a clear choice between the reagan conservatism and the european socialist model that obama wants. i'm not afraid to defend free enterprise. the governor was afraid to defend the successful because he thought it was a dead-loser. first you win the argument, then you win the vote. believe me, i look forward to
win the argument with barack obama and i am confident that with your help we will defeat it. i look forward to your questions. this gentleman here in the red and work our way across and then back around here. >> it is an honor to meet you. >> thank you. >> my name is dr. john anderson. i'm a retired nuclear physicist and i live up in pittsburgh, new hampshire. i want to say one thing first and then i have a question so you don't get accused of attacking romney, i lived in massachusetts when he was governor and you're telling the absolute truth because i lived through it and anybody -- there's just no difference. you call him a moderate and that's being generous.
because he's -- i don't even think he qualifies for being a moderate. and as a vietnam vet, i was pretty upset with a certain person that endorsed him the other day. but in any case, my question is this as a nuclear physicist. i'm very concerned that iran has developed a fuel rod. if they have developed a fuel rod, then they're next door to a nuclear weapon very easily. and certainly with the missile system they have, it is close enough that this is now going to threaten not only the gulf but israel. so that's my first question is what you would do there. my second question is, is that i think it is a terrible security situation where we're borrowing all this money from china. you know? i still remember tee iananmen
square. to be this close to this is really a security breach. >> we were in china in the summer 26 how to 9 and we had this funny series of dinners, went north to beijing and m manchuria. every night we'd have dinner with senior chinese officials. everywhere we went they'd say why have you given up on capitalism? we're really worried because we don't want to buy anymore of your debt. we really think you should get rid of these people who want to go to government control. you don't want to have government control. it doesn't work. these are the chinese lecturing us on capitalism and they just thought what we were doing in the stimulus is crazy. you're borrowing money from us to throw it away. so your point is well made. i am committed to getting back
to a balanced budget. i'm the only candidate in the race that's four times helped develop a balanced budget and i will assure you i will undertake the steps necessary to get us back to a balanced budget. i am for running a surplus until we get the debt down to 40% of gdp. think that has to be our goal because it is dangerous to have that much debt overseas. i'm also for dramatically rebuilding our manufacturing base because you cannot be the arsenal of democracy if you don't have an arsenal. we have to rebuild our manufacturing base in competition with china and india and that's why i have such dramatic tax proposals to do that. on nuclear weapons -- this is my number one argument with ron paul. i helped create the ruddman commission. when i stepped down, president clinton was very generous in letting me seven. it looked at national security out to 2025. it reported in march of 2001 and say the greatest single threat
to the united states is a weapon of mass destruction in an american city, probably by a terrorist group. okay? so i start -- you don't need to deliver these weapons by missiles. you can have a ship come in your harbor. you can have a cargo van come across the border. there are a lot of ways to deliver a nuclear weapon and i believe that the idea that ron paul has that it doesn't matter, if the iranians have a nuclear weapon is unbelievably dangerous to the survival of the united states. >> gingrich out of littleton, new hampshire taken on ron paul over the hot-button issue in iran. listen to this 911 tall.
>> i've got two guns in my hand. is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door? >> well, you have to do whatever you can do to protect yourself. i can't tell you that you can do that. but you do what you have to do to protect your baby. >> so this is what happens next. 18-year-old sara dawn mckinley opens fire with the shotgun, killed the man she said broke down her door and entered her home. now listen to her describe to hln dr. drew what led up to the shooting. >> when he showed up on thursday what did he say to you? >> when he showed up on thursday, i answered the door and i kind of poked my head out, just, you know, to see what he wanted. and he said that he worked for my landlord and he had moved in on the property that i was on and there's 2,000 acres and he said that he moved somewhere back in there.
and it was dark so you don't come introduce yourself to your neighbor late at night like that. and so that was the first thing that made me know that he wasn't good. >> you said that at that point was your sister and brother-in-law were there, did they want to stay with you that night? did they confront this guy? >> yes. they stayed with me because he had went to approach me when i opened the door and my sister's husband was standing behind the door and he didn't -- he did not realize that. when he jerked the door open, my sister's husband, he stopped and kind of hesitated and was stumbling over his words a lot and asked me who the man was and i told him it was my sister's husband and just didn't seem right. he seemed very nervous, very -- >> sara, when he was at the door pounding to get in, was he saying anything? was he calling to you? did he threaten you in any way? >> no. no. but he first started knocking --
he knew that i was home because my son was screaming. he was in the bedroom. my son was screaming and i pushed the couch in front of the door and when i did the couch hit the door and it made a noise and he then started knocking more aggressively and more louder, like it had made him mad. so i got the shotgun and i put -- i went to the bedroom, put the bottle in the baby's mouth. >> sara dawn mckinley says that's when she pulled the trigger. the mwhom she said entered her home is dead and the man with him is now facing murder charges. i want to bring in a former new york city prosecutor and defense attorney. before we get to the topic of whether or not she was justified in killing this home invader, the fact that she actually asked for permission on the home is pretty extraordinary. explain to us why the accomplice here is actually the one who's facing the murder charges. >> well, oklahoma has a statute
as do most american states called the felony murder rule. what it means basically is that if you're committing a serious felony and somebody dies in the course of the commission of that crime, you're chargeable with the murder. more often than not you see it when, say, there is a hold-up and there is a look-out guy out in the car and two guys go in and pum the trigger. the guy in the car says i didn't know they were going to pull a gun and kill somebody. felony murder, he's guilty as they are guilty. this is a little bit unusual here because obviously this is one of the burglars who is being charged with the murder of a fellow burglar. but it is called the felony murder rule. >> is it a strong case for prosecutors to charge this accomplice to this crime? >> we have to look at the facts. of course he is presumed innocent at this point. one of the news accounts said that his initial claim to the police was that he was back looking over a fence while the accomplice was trying to get in. if that's not true, if the two of them planned to break in to the house and steal drugs, that
would fall under the scope of the felony murder rule and he may be facing a murder conviction here. but it's not an easy case against the accomplice. >> paul, stay right there. want to talk next about what is called the castle doctrine. a law that allows americans to defend themselves in their own homes and it doesn't apply everywhere. we'll talk about that after the break. i love to eat. i love hanging out with my friends. i have a great fit with my dentures. i love kiwis. i've always had that issue with the seeds getting under my denture. super poligrip free -- it creates a seal of the dentures in my mouth. even well-fitting dentures let in food particles. super poligrip is zinc free. with just a few dabs, it's clinically proven to seal out more food particles so you're more comfortable and confident while you eat. super poligrip free made the kiwi an enjoyable experience. [ charlie ] try zinc free super poligrip.
so we were talking about the case of sara dawn mckinley, 18 years old with a baby. her husband died of cancer on christmas day. now she says that two men broke into her home. they were armed. she was armed. she shot and killed one of these intruders. the other faces murder charges for that death. a criminal defense attorney is with us from new york, also a former prosecutor. paul, talk a little bit about there. i want to read to you oklahoma state law. it says that a person who is not engaging -- engaged in an unlawful activity, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. that is oklahoma's version of the castle doctrine. many states, not all of them, have this kind of law in place. what does it mean? >> well, you know, the law used
to be in most states that you could use deadly physical force on somebody else if they were going to use that kind of force on you. and then there were some cases involving home invasions where somebody used a shotgun to kill somebody coming in to the house and there was a question in court as to whether that was an overreaction to the threat. so a lot of the states passed laws which we call castle doctrine laws which basically say, if somebody is coming in to your house, breaking in to your house, you don't have a duty to retreat. out on the duty you would have a duty to retreat. in your house you have no duty to retreat in most states and you can use deadly physical force on that person. even if they are not armed. now this differs from state to state and have you to be very, very careful about what the law is in your particular jurisdiction. but basically somebody invades your house, you have the right to protect yourself. >> what about the distinction here. what if someone is already in your home. can you kill -- legally kill
anyone in your home that you feel is a threat? >> no. that gets much more complicated. in that case, the person has to actually be a threat. a reasonable person would have to look at the situation and say, he is a threat. in that case, you would have the right to use force. so obviously if you invite somebody into your house and they pull a gun, then try to steal something from you, yes, you can use lethal force on them. but there is a lot of case law, when you just defend property but not your person, in some states you can't use that kind of force. you look at window, for instance, and somebody's stealing your car. in most case you can't poke a shotgun out window and shoot the person who's stealing your car even though they're a thief. that's defense of property and the level of force is less. but if you're personally threatened, somebody's going to hurt you or hurt your baby, you have the right to protect yourself by using serious or lethal force in most american states.
just as sara did in oklahoma. >> a lot of people, paul, look at this case and they think, if i had kids and my baby is in my arms, i'm going to do anything i can to protect them. right? you're going to shoot. why is the castle doctrine even controversial? >> it is controversial because you look at sara's case. everybody says, gee, this is clear as a bell, why are we worried about this? she did exactly the right thing. but another oklahoma case that happened a few years ago. couple of teenage boys broke into a pharmacy and they were going to steal drugs in the pharmacy. pharmacist pulled out a gun and shot one of them. then after the 16-year-old boy fell to the floor unconscious, the pharmacist went over and pumped five more bullets into him, killing him. now he claimed essentially the castle doctrine. he said they were trying to steal from my pharmacy. but was he justified in shooting the unconscious man five more times? he was charged with first degree murder and convicted by an oklahoma jury because he was not
threatened at the time he used the lethal force. so this stuff gets very complicated when it plays out in real life. i have to tell you, suzanne, having tried a lot of cases myself as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney, this thing about was self-defense there or not there, was use of force justified, it is what a lot of criminal trials really revolve around. so it is complicated in real life. >> paul, thank you very much. interesting case. >> nice being with you. two new glimmers of hope today for the economy. but is it going to be enough to put people back to work? new details and an update on the markets. each week we profile folks who are agents of change. they are not household names. not yet, at leaves. but they're movers and shakers in their own way. "the next list." this week it is devoted to defining the idea of who is an agent of change. >> before the ipad i used to joke that i made useless programs. but they are as useless as a
song, a movie, a story, something like that. all of a sudden with the ipad, i could just go directly to people and say, check this thing out. it doesn't even -- we don't even have to label what it is. it is just called gravel x. it is called bubble harp. see if you like it and all of a sudden they did. this is an rc robotic claw.
my high school science teacher made me what i am today. our science teacher helped us build it. ♪ now i'm a geologist at chevron, and i get to help science teachers. it has four servo motors and a wireless microcontroller. over the last three years we've put nearly 100 million dollars into american education. that's thousands of kids learning to love science. ♪ isn't that cool? and that's pretty cool. ♪
not one, but two upbeat reports on the jobs front today. all leads to tomorrow's big report from the government. alison kosik joins us from the new york stock exchange. can we do the happy dance yet, or no? >> i wouldn't quite do the happy dance just yet, suzanne. i talked with a few economists, they say hold off on that happy dance because, yes, it is nice to see improvement in the jobs market but not everybody's putting a lot of weight in the big job headline that we got today. big headline came from adp. that's the company that processes payrolls. it said 325,000 jobs were added in december and it is good news because, sure, it is double what was expected, it is the best in a year but the reality is it is
a little questionable because there may be some distortions about some holiday hiring. we got an upbeat report on the number of people filing first-time jobless claims and then you see definite improvement. look at the past five years, in 2007 the recession started. we added just a half a million jobs. 2008, 2009, the job market fell off a cliff there. you saw some improvement in 2010, and now we're seeing even better than we saw in 2 -- we add 1.9 million jobs in 2011. >> what do you think it will mean for tomorrow's jobs report from the government? should we expect a big gain? >> i'll tell you this. take that 325,000 private payrolls, those jobs added, take that number with a grain of salt.
the reality is the adp reports, government report we'll get tomorrow, don't always match up because of those seasonal adjustments that i mentioned. they just sometimes throw the reports off. the expectation for tomorrow is that 150,000 public and private jobs were added in december. there's also an expectation that the unemployment rate is going to tick higher but that's not necessarily bad news because if that happens, it is likely because people are actually gaining confidence, they're out in the work force again. they count as unemployed because they are counted in the labor pool. we'll see tomorrow and have all those numbers for you. >> how are the markets reacting today? >> stocks are well off their lows. you see the dow is down 36. so doing a little better than before. the upbeat sentiment from that jobs report also is kind of being trumped by new worries about europe. we're watching the value of the euro falling. there are more fears of france's debt being drown graded. greece is under pressure to push through austerity measures which are clearly not popular.
we've got those worries coming into the market and putting out the good news about jobs. >> we'll look forward to seeing what those numbers look like tomorrow. thanks. one soldier came up with an idea of instant voice chat technology while fighting in afghanistan. we'll show you how this technology is changing how we communicate. wait. we can have shakes? and boston cream pie. did you say pie? pie. she said pie. pie. [ male announcer ] get back on track with low prices on everything you need. backed by our ad match guarantee. walmart.
okay... is this where we're at now, we just eat whatever tastes good? like these sweet honey clusters... actually there's a half a day's worth of fiber in every ... why stop at cereal? bring on the pork chops and the hot fudge. fantastic. are you done sweetie? yea [ male announcer ] fiber beyond recognition. fiber one. hey, i love your cereal there-- it's got that sweet honey taste. but no way it's 80 calories, right? no way. lady, i just drive the truck. right, there's no way right, right? have a nice day. [ male announcer ] 80 delicious calories. fiber one.
change it by creating an app that allows you to send instant voice chats. goat this idea when he needed better technology to talk to other soldiers on the battlefield. dan simon explains how this works. >> reporter: for tom, the idea arose from the heat of battle. you were communication specialist in the army. >> yes. i was special forces communication sergeant. >> reporter: he found himself fighting in afghanistan a year after 9/11. it was actually his second stint in the army after this east coast native graduated from yale. >> if i ever thought of myself as a green beret, now's the time to do it, if not now, when. >> reporter: he found communication in the badle field challenging. >> you can only talk to one group, individual or channel at a time yet you have to maintain multiples sprat of them simultaneously. >> reporter: ten years later he hits the apple app store born
out of his war time experience. it is an app that essentially turns your apple or android device into a walkie-talkie, a 21st century version. >> it does all these other things so people are attracted to it because it is a walkie-talkie, then all of a sudden they realize it doesn't actually interrupt. i can talk and they just get a notification. >> reporter: it acts differently by storing all your messages in the cloud so users can listen to the message live or later and then respond. >> hey, dan, i'm here, showing off the software. >> reporter: it is a lot like text-based messaging but adding a voice it. >> as i'm speaking it should be streaming live. >> reporter: how to first envisioned as technology for the military, it's been gaining a cult following on itunes, recently even beating out facebook and twitter as the number one download social networking app. >> over the last month we've seen it just explode and that's where we really started to feel like we've got something here with some legs.
we've got users in saudi arabia, in brazil, in asia. >> reporter: the country attributes the app's success to what it believes is a new form of social etiquette driven by young people -- less phone calls, more texting. he believes he's invented a new form of communication with the marriage of the traditional phone call and the text message. >> at this point boxer has not made a dime. it is a free app. >> that's right. it's lost a lot of money. it is very standard to lose money at first. you're trying to prove something new. if you put up a big barrier of charging for it up front then people aren't going to try it. it's the classic sort of get people using it for free, then find some way to get a pes arch to pay you for some stuff. >> dan simons joins us to talk about better stuff. basically turns your iphone into a walkie-talkie and it is available free right now. do we think that's going to last much longer?
>> well, first of all, yeah, it takes advantage of all your smartphone capabilities and then adds a walkie-talkie to it so you have this new cool technology. in terms of whether or not it will be free, yes, they plan on keeping this app free forever. but at some point they'll add some premium features and then charge money for it so they can actually make some money off of this app. we should add that the ceo, interesting back story there, this effort is almost entirely self-funded thanks to his other successful venture, a company called triple canopy which is a private security firm. they got 8,000 employees so they have a lot of money to keep going at this point. >> all right, good deal. it is a great idea. thank you, dan. are you a computer geek? ready for a challenge? take a look at this. this is a math problem. if you can solve this, you could actually lead to your dream job. we'll explain. plus, we're getting a lot of responses to today's "talk back" question. we asked is president obama's military plan the right move for the united states? your responses up next. kids, my
daughter's like, "mom, wait up!" and i'm thinking, "shouldn't you have more energy than me? you're, like, eight!" [ male announcer ] for every 2 pounds you lose through diet and exercise alli can help you lose one more by blocking some of the fat you eat. simple. effective. advantage: mom. let's fight fat with alli ♪ we're getting back in shape. oh! try these. i sprinted here... wow! from your house?! from the car. unh! ooh. [ male announcer ] get back on track with low prices on everything you need. backed by our ad match guarantee. walmart.
my son and i never missed opening day. but with copd making it hard to breathe, i thought those days might be over. so my doctor prescribed symbicort. it helps significantly improve my lung function, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. with symbicort, today i'm breathing better, and that means... game on! symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. [ whistle ] with copd, i thought i might miss out on my favorite tradition. now symbicort significantly improves my lung function, starting within 5 minutes. and that makes a difference in my breathing. today i'm back with my favorite team. ask your doctor about symbicort. i got my first prescription free. call or click to learn more. [ male announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.
facebook ploy -- do you think you have what it takes to work there? it is a test that people who want to work at facebook may have to pass before being considered for a job. some people who are most prepared to solve this puzzle are actually hackers. that's right. facebook officials say that hackers have the knowledge, the
creativity, translates into great employees. in fact, the company actually hosts a hackers cup tournament to test the skills of computer experts and hackers. the winner gets $5,000. not bad. getting a lot of responses to today's "pauk back" question. we asked is president obama's military plan the right move for the united states? george says -- we have to realize we don't have the unlimited ability to wage wars all over the globe. the money is better spent investing in future technologies that could very well lead the world away from the mentality that wars are a necessity. joe says -- the u.s. cannot afford cuts in the military as unstable as the world is today. larry says -- losing an asset is unfortunate. loss of life is tragic. this is the way to go. s-boatman -- whatever is necessary to protect canno